Mark Levin issues a manifesto for conservative apologists to challenge modern liberalism.
In Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin offers a polemical manifesto for the modern conservative movement. Addressing multiple facets of conservative ideology, Levin outlines the relationship between conservatism and liberty. He further equates non-conservatism with tyranny. Reaching back to America’s founding, Levin establishes a conservative polemic to challenge what he calls a “statist agenda.” Mark Levin’s attempt to square modern conservatism with history, however, falls short.
Topics Covered in Liberty and Tyranny
Faith of the Founding Fathers
Constitution
Academia
Federalism
Free Market
Welfare
Environment
Immigration
Levin's Absolutism
Levin reduces the American political system to ideological absolutism. Claiming “conservatism is the antidote to tyranny” (11) he provides an outline for proper conservative thought. Any political thought that does not perfectly agree with Levin's outline, however, is deemed tyrannical. He sweeps through America’s past, picking and choosing historical events to support his thesis. In the process, he omits at least a third of American history, particularly anything that demonstrates conservatism’s weaknesses. With rhetorical eloquence, Levin reveres conservatism as the protector of liberty but never adequately clarifies liberty’s abuses in American history.
Levin's Statism
Another theme in Levin’s work is the tyranny of statism. He characterizes the Modern Liberal as a statist who believes in the supremacy of the state over the individual. In doing so, he creates an illusion. In fact, varying degrees of statism have existed since the nation’s founding. Even the founders exhibited characteristics of Levin’s “statist.” They understood the dangers of democratic excess and limited the powers of the individual while paying lip service to liberty. They strengthened the federal government in light of weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation and reluctantly included a bill of rights. In essence, Levin collectively mischaracterizes the founding fathers and their relationship to modern conservatism.
Levin's Escapism
Levin’s manifesto also promotes conservative escapism. In many ways, the presidency of George W. Bush complicates Levin's assertions because it reflects Levin’s characterization of statism, particularly with the Patriot Act and bank bailouts. Levin effectively criticizes Republican statists, however, and identifies their shortcomings, implying that modern Republicans are not true conservatives. He also fails to demonstrate that his brand of conservatism can actually work as his premises for the manifesto are largely unsupported by history. Levin further excuses conservatives from their own statist past by distracting the reader with an enemy of liberty, the Modern Liberal. Twisting historical memory, Levin reinforces historical illusions and pushes for the recovery of a past that never existed.
Summary
While Levin’s work is absolutist and escapist in nature, it addresses relevant issues in American society. Numerous programs and institutions need reform, and Levin’s work can be a springboard for debate. At a time when the Republican Party is searching for its identity, Levin provides a platform.
For a more detailed analysis of Levin's absolutism, seeLiberty and Tyranny: Mark Levin's Interpretation of Political Ideology is Absolutist.
Levin, Mark R. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (New York: Threshold Editions, 2009)
ISBN-13: 978-1-4165-6285-6
The copyright of the article Review of Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin in History/Philosophy Books is owned by Shaun Martin. Permission to republish Review of Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
I don't see you providing any support for your assertions here. How about
some concrete examples to prove your points? You say "premises for the
manifesto are largely unsupported by history.", but you give no detail
about what it is you mean. Where does Levin dismiss ""slavery,
corporate greed, and extreme social inequalities as minor imperfections?
" You don't tell us. Can you give an example of "Any political
thought that does not perfectly agree with Levin's outline, however, is
deemed tyrannical."? I am not seeing this in the book.
This is nice start at a review, but leaves a heck of a lot to the
imagination.
Apr 21, 2009 4:46 PM
Guest :
I can tell what persuasion you come from. Your review attacks views
expressed int this book and labels them historicaly inaccurate without any
clarification as to what about history contradiicts the way it is portrayed
in the book and why. It would be nice if you were at least willing to
leave references of where one can go to set the record straight if you
belive that the book unfairly or falsely portrayed. Criticism without
citation is worth nothing.
Apr 24, 2009 4:37 PM
Guest :
Still #1 four weeks in a row. It is in it's 18th printing and way over a
million copies sold. Yet the silence is deafening from the main stream
media. They went on and on about the Anti-American book Obama received when
it shot temperarily to #2 but not ONE network mentioned the Pro- American
book that stopped it from becoming number one. Journalism is dead. Your's is actually the first reveiw I've seen of it. I'll give you credit
for not just totally ignoring it.
May 9, 2009 5:06 PM
Guest :
It is ok to disagree with Levin ... at least his assertions were well
footnoted. However, I take issue with assigning failures of free men as
that of a failure of liberty. Men, as the founders knew, were capable of
bad choices. Liberty of all men will ensure the mistakes of a few will be
corrected in time. The alternative, as Levin appropriately noted, was that
of the STATIST being the know-all and end-all; why are we to believe that
the STATIST will have the "right" answer more often than the free
man?
Jun 19, 2009 11:01 AM
Guest :
You say the founders reluctantly added a Bill of Rights? I have never
heard the Bill of Rights addressed in that respect. It jaded my opinion of
your entire review.
Jul 20, 2009 6:31 PM
Guest :
As an anti-conservative, your review of a steadfast Conservative's treatise
cannot help but sound purely emotional and otiose. The author is
unrelenting and uncompromising in his incisive portrayal of a political
philosophy that, if you are a conservative, NEVER changes nor vacillates
with the times. In our current kakistocracy, where deceptions and
distortions are the order of the day, this book comes as a remarkable,
nepenthean relief for those who still believe in political selflessness,
honesty and character.
Aug 3, 2009 10:04 PM
Guest :
Read it again. This review is not an attack on conservatism. It is a
critique of how Levin reconciles conservatism with American history. It is
a critical analysis of Levin's portrayal of conservatism. His manifesto is
unrealistic. It's as useful as Marx's manifesto.
Aug 4, 2009 6:06 AM
Guest :
Only a few delegates were reluctant to add a bill of rights for fear that
the government would recognize only the rights listed. Your review
attempts to make this reluctance a sign that the founders did not value
individualism over collectivism which is false.
Sep 15, 2009 2:41 PM
Guest :
Responding to the first post, the Manifesto is a huge break from history.
For example, look at his assertion that America is a Christian Nation.
Thomas Paine, the founding father who wrote "Common
Sense" and inspired millions to revolt against Tyranny (you'll find
all sides of the French Revolution read his pamphlet as gospel) wrote two
papers decrying the church (he also wrote this little masterpiece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice).
Thomas
Jefferson, one of our first Presidents, said that "Religion retreats
before Science like witches before daylight" and joined with James
Madison (a man who all conservative quote all the time) in a campaign to
cut all state funding from Virginia Churches.
George Washington
signed into effect the Treaty of Tripoli which was approved by all the
founding fathers of the time and boldly declared in its beginning
"America is not a Christian Nation".
And that's just a
few statements in the second chapter, not counting the rest of this work of
fiction.
